dittybopper:The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

Yup. But of course, lawmakers won't have a dialog with folks who are informed and concerned - that would take time, and "OMG we need to do something NOW!"

I have always found it interesting that in my state, where gun control laws are pretty non-existent, if you go to the state gun owners website and look at their classifieds, pretty much all the sellers will insist on seeing your concealed carry permit before they sell you anything, whether it is a handgun or long gun. It is how they know you have had a background check and been cleared - so the person-to-person sales "loophole" is pretty easy to close, especially when the sellers are responsible.

Blues_X:dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."

It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false. Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.

Uisce Beatha:Blues_X: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."

It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false. Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.

Funny how you guys always run to the AWB that is never going to happen. Do you not support universal background checks? If not why? Difficulty:There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

sammyk:Funny how you guys always run to the AWB that is never going to happen. Do you not support universal background checks? If not why? Difficulty:There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Funny that you didn't read my previous post. Many responsible gun owners already self-impose background checks, even for person to person sales. Most have no issue with it as a concept. It is the implementation that they worry about.

doglover:sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.

On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused, such as in an effort to shame them through publishing it to the public?

Uisce Beatha:Blues_X: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."

It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false. Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.

doglover:sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.

This would not change. Got anything else?

http://smartgunlaws.org/retention-of-sales-background-check-records- po licy-summary/Summary of Federal LawBackground Check Records: Until 2004, information on approved NICS background checks was retained by NICS for ninety days.9 This information helped ATF deter fraud and detect dealers who might be providing false information about a prohibited person, by inspecting a dealer's records within the ninety-day period and verifying that the records matched the information earlier submitted to NICS.10 If discrepancies were found, ATF could conduct a further investigation of the dealer to determine whether the dealer submitted false information to NICS.11 In a recent review of trafficking investigations, ATF determined that corrupt dealers are a significant source of trafficked firearms.12As of July 2004, approved purchaser information is no longer kept for ninety days but is instead destroyed within twenty-four hours of the official NICS response to the dealer.13 As a result, ATF inspectors are no longer able to compare the information on file with the dealer to the information the dealer submitted to NICS. The Department of Justice Inspector General noted that the shortened retention time makes it much easier for corrupt firearm dealers to avoid detection.14 Federal law also specifically prohibits using NICS to create any system of registration of firearms or firearm owners.15The FBI maintains indefinitely the records of prospective purchasers whose applications are denied.16Sales Records: FFLs are required to maintain records of the acquisition and sale of firearms indefinitely.17 The dealer must record, "in bound form," the purchase or other acquisition of a firearm not later than the close of the next business day following the purchase or acquisition.18 The dealer must similarly record the sale or other disposition of a firearm not later than seven days following the date of such transaction and retain Form 4473, the Firearms Transaction Record.19 When a firearms business is discontinued, these records are delivered to the successor or, if none exists, to the Attorney General.20With very limited exceptions, records of firearm sales are not maintained at the federal level. The National Firearms Act Branch of ATF does maintain a limited registry of machine guns, short-barreled shotguns or rifles, and silencers, known as the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.21

SUMMARY OF STATE LAWS CONCERNINGRETENTION OF FIREARM SALES AND BACKGROUND CHECK RECORDSState laws governing retention of firearm sales records fall into the following categories: (1) states that require sellers to retain sales records for a specified time period; and(2) states that retain records of firearms sales as reported by sellers to law enforcement.22 Application of these laws to licensed dealers and private sellers is explained below. Most state laws are silent with respect to the retention of background check records. However, nine states are required by statute to purge background check records after a short time period.

Uisce Beatha:It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false. Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.

Depends on the nature of the ban. Something like the one in the 90s? Absolutely useless. Pistol grips do not make or break a mass shooting. Problem is, what the hell does? What happened at Sandy Hook could have just as easily been carried out with a semiautomatic pistol. So if the aim is to stop the next mass shooting, I suppose we'd have to ban all firearms that aren't single shot, which only the truly naive think is ever going to come to pass in the USA.

Given the current political paradigm, this is just not a solvable problem.

Dimensio:doglover: sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.

On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused, such as in an effort to shame them through publishing it to the public?Uisce Beatha: Blues_X: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."

It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false. Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.

Are you going to attempt to argue the unbelievable position that this deadly military-style semi-automatic assault weapon is no more dangerous than is this legitimate civilian firearm?

I'm so glad you're on board with handgun control, or possibly a UK-style gun ban.

Uisce Beatha:sammyk: Funny how you guys always run to the AWB that is never going to happen. Do you not support universal background checks? If not why? Difficulty:There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Funny that you didn't read my previous post. Many responsible gun owners already self-impose background checks, even for person to person sales. Most have no issue with it as a concept. It is the implementation that they worry about.

Oh I read it. Hats off to responsible gun owners. Seriously, BRAVO.

No one is suggesting we change the current NICS system. Just expand it to all gun purchases. Do you have any issues with the current system?

cameroncrazy1984:Dimensio: doglover: sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.

On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused, such as in an effort to shame them through publishing it to the public?Uisce Beatha: Blues_X: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."

It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false. Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.

Are you going to attempt to argue the unbelievable position that this deadly military-style semi-automatic assault weapon is no more dangerous than is this legitimate civilian firearm?

I'm so glad you're on board with handgun control, or possibly a UK-style gun ban.

I have never asserted acceptance of such control, and in fact I recognize a handgun ban to be Unconstitutional. For what reason are you lying?

dittybopper:Altair: "Gun control" and so-called "stricter guns laws" is so poorly defined these days that opinion polls about them are useless

I'm guessing that 90% of the people polled, including most gun owners btw, don't have a good, comprehensive grasp on current gun laws.

The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

Especially if they are going by the old survey that Obama is using to claim that 40% of people do not get a background check when purchasing a firearm.

And what does federal funding for gun studies matter if new studies will say only 4% do not get a background check....they will ignore the new survey since they have an older one that generates more fear with the 40% number.

Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on. People do not know that a licensed dealer by law has to perform background checks whether he sells firearms at a brick and mortar store, a gun show or an Arbys parking lot.

cameroncrazy1984:Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: I have never asserted acceptance of such control, and in fact I recognize a handgun ban to be Unconstitutional. For what reason are you lying?

I'm not lying. You have asserted that the only way to control gun violence is not just through an assault weapons ban but through the ban of all guns.

Please reference the specific posting in which I issued such an assertion.

You made the inference that a military-style weapon is just as dangerous as a handgun. Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that you can't just ban assault rifles, but handguns too.

On the contrary; I made the inference -- based upon accepting assault weapons ban advocates at their word -- that a military-stile assault weapon is more dangerous than is a non-assault weapon handgun. I advocated no bans at all. Your claim remains a lie.

cameroncrazy1984:nekom: Given the current political paradigm, this is just not a solvable problem.

We can't stop 100% of all mass shootings, so why bother trying?

Can we even stop ANY of them, that's my question. Aside from the politically impossible act of actually banning all but single shot guns, what can honestly be done? Personally I'm in favor of extremely strict gun control, similar to what they have in Europe, but I'm aware enough of the political paradigm to know that's just not in the cards. So what in the world will stop even ONE mass shooting from happening? Remember Sandy Hook was perpetrated using 100% legally acquired and legally owned firearms.

We're going to wind up with some feel-good bans on specific weapons (probably kinds that weren't even used in any recent mass shooting) so that congress can say they did something, and the next mass shooting... well it is April, seems to be a prime month for that sort of stuff, sadly.

Dimensio:cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: I have never asserted acceptance of such control, and in fact I recognize a handgun ban to be Unconstitutional. For what reason are you lying?

I'm not lying. You have asserted that the only way to control gun violence is not just through an assault weapons ban but through the ban of all guns.

Please reference the specific posting in which I issued such an assertion.

You made the inference that a military-style weapon is just as dangerous as a handgun. Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that you can't just ban assault rifles, but handguns too.

On the contrary; I made the inference -- based upon accepting assault weapons ban advocates at their word -- that a military-stile assault weapon is more dangerous than is a non-assault weapon handgun. I advocated no bans at all. Your claim remains a lie.

cameroncrazy1984:Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: I have never asserted acceptance of such control, and in fact I recognize a handgun ban to be Unconstitutional. For what reason are you lying?

I'm not lying. You have asserted that the only way to control gun violence is not just through an assault weapons ban but through the ban of all guns.

Please reference the specific posting in which I issued such an assertion.

You made the inference that a military-style weapon is just as dangerous as a handgun. Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that you can't just ban assault rifles, but handguns too.

On the contrary; I made the inference -- based upon accepting assault weapons ban advocates at their word -- that a military-stile assault weapon is more dangerous than is a non-assault weapon handgun. I advocated no bans at all. Your claim remains a lie.

So you made a strawman argument, basically.

My argument was based upon the claims of assault weapons ban advocates being honest. Are you saying that assault weapons ban advocates are not honest?

Don't forget the person denied may have committed a crime by attempting to buy a gun. Sure seems the so called law abiding gun owners like to support criminals having access to guns for...er...freedom I guess.